Results 1 to 23 of 23

Thread: Man confronted for open carry, video

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    24

    Man confronted for open carry, video

    This guy stayed really calm and did a great job...thought some of you would enjoy.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXwP0...eature=related

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    24
    sorry for the double; one of these needs deleted

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    131
    would i go up and video tape a cop stop while OCing? probably not, but you are right he stayed pretty cool. I am glad even the cops remained semi cool about it. It doesnt take much searching on youtube to find OC videos where cops or civilians have lost there cool. Good post!



    Tim

  4. #4
    Regular Member Large Caliber Kick's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Mooresville, North Carolina, United States
    Posts
    224
    This guy went out looking to get involved in a conversation with a leo and he went about it the wrong way. If you want to talk to the cops while carrying then hang out where most of them take their coffee breaks and greet them as you would anyone else. People like this give us a bad name by pulling stunts like that and makes it worse by posting it on youtube.

  5. #5
    Activist Member carsontech's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Anderson, SC
    Posts
    531
    I'm not up to chasing police around with a camera...yet. I skipped around in the video because I've seen videos like this before, I believe most of us have. I'm not into this stuff, but I support the right to do it.

    Part of me is saying, "why on earth would I put myself in a situation to be close to LEOs when I know what they can get away with?" Another part of me is saying "who will watch the watchmen?"

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Irvine, Ky
    Posts
    85
    that mans silly, if i was a cop i would raise questions. man comes up with a camera and a gun. he brought himself to that situation. he wasn't minding his own he went meddling. dudes a trouble maker. he confronted the police.

  7. #7
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849
    As innocent and non-threatening as it appears, this is never a good idea. Some would call it flaunting, some baiting, and some deliberately confrontational. Regardless of the labels that could be attached and even if nothing comes of it. it is not a good idea to deliberately and without apparent reason to do something like this. You are only going to be viewed as someone who is looking for a confrontation.

    We who OC on a regular basis do not need, nor do we want, to have unnecessary attention drawn to ourselves just because we have a visible firearm on our person. If I happen to encounter an LEO while going about my business armed, that's entirely different. Or if I have an honest reason to approach an LEO while armed, that is also fine in my opinion (I have done this perhaps twice in 4 1/2 years). But I am not about to "bait" an officer in the hopes of getting good copy for video presentation on some website. This serves no valuable purpose and only gives credence to those who are fully against OC'ing.

    Best is to think of carrying a firearm the same as carrying a cell phone. It's there for a reason and you are not of a mind to flaunt it or make a scene because you are armed. It's a tool, plain and simple, and has it's purpose on your person. And part of that purpose is not to be antagonistic, threatening, or in plain English, an a--hole.
    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    SEMO, , USA
    Posts
    578
    Let me say that this is not something I could see myself doing. With that said. Would it have been different had the person had a hammer hanging off their belt? I believe there was just a story in the news were a guy with a hammer was attacking people at a mall. The simple truth is that any "tool" can be used as a weapon. Would the facts of the situation have been different if the man had been CCing? The facts are(as I see them) a man who is carrying a weapon goes to a film a traffic stop.

    This man chose to film the police during a traffic stop. The fact that he chose to exercise his right to carry a firearm, while doing so shouldn't enter into it. I often hear people saying they are trying to make OC more acceptable to the general public. Do you not realize that if we continue to say that "there's a time and place for it" that we are saying that there should be limits to how and when we exercise our rights. Are we saying that in this case it would have been better to CC rather than cast OC in a bad light? If that's the case then we are arguing appearances not rights.

    It is true that labels may be attached to him for what he did. I would point out that those same labels are already attached to us by those who don't agree with how we chose to exercise our rights. You can be as clean cut and pleasant you like, there are still going to be those(even those who say they support the 2A) who are going to label you derisively.

    This man chose to exercise two rights at the same time, and while I might not agree with how he did them, I will not condemn him for either. Some can label him activist, others can label him A-hole, I'm just glad to see people exercising rights lest they atrophy and die. As for the activist to A-hole scale, I view this guy somewhere in the middle, but recognize all points of it have rights.
    AUDE VIDE TACE

  9. #9
    Regular Member MilProGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Mississippi
    Posts
    1,228
    The fellow was foolish to approach an officer who was conducting a routine traffic stop, with a gun on his side and a video camera rolling.

    He set out to get noticed with his gun, just sayin'.
    Proud Veteran ~ U.S. Army / Army Reserve

    Mississippi State Guard ~ Honorably Retired


  10. #10
    Regular Member 09jisaac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Louisa, Kentucky
    Posts
    1,694
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    That cop was dead wrong. The dude told the cop why he was filming. The dude backed off as directed by the cop. In the first two minutes of this video the stop of the red car was over and the red car had drove away. The dude is walking away from the cop. This cop decided to contact the dude. That cop should have just drove off and let the dude have his two minutes of uneventful video. But no, he is the law and he ain't gunna let a mere citizen get away with that.

    Anyone putting this on the dude is just as wrong as that cop.
    OC is right, in my opinion. If anyone is just filming a confrontation by cops they're justified, they're trying to protect themselves/others. If someone is displaying a firearm most of us here think that they're just trying to protect themselves/others but as soon as you combine the two, they're "a--holes"? He complied with the officers request to step away from the traffic stop. He wasn't OCing a rifle. He might have wanted a confrontation, but that is his right to do.

    It is our right to watch those that "watch" us. It is also our right to carry a firearm around in everyday life. So why is it so stupid to do them both? Most cops realize that they enforce the law. Out of my limited dealings with officers none has ever tried to be the law, one tried his best to find a law I was breaking. So we need to make it plain to these cops that they are being watched and they are under scrutiny. Unless something is very sensitive then we should film everything that LEOs do in official business.

  11. #11
    Campaign Veteran Schlitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,567
    I want people to think of the open carry community as normal people who go about there day doing normal things - they just carry their gun openly instead of concealed.

    But this guy ruins that image, in my opinion. He isn't just going about a normal routine openly carrying, he is interrupting a police officer conducting a traffic stop. You know how we all talk about increased situational awareness when we are open carrying? Well that is what is on the cops mind while he is in the middle of a traffic stop. It's not like the cop just saw a man walk by while open carrying during the traffic stop, the guy intentionally threw himself into the situation (walked right up the front of the car). This cop didn't see an open carrier, he saw a man walk right up to the ******* car during his traffic stop, and for the cherry on top the individual who was being disruptive just happened to have a firearm.

    Look, I don't want a cop all up in my face while I'm conducting my everyday business, and out of respect I don't throw myself into their business.


    Now after the fact, the cop seemed to be pissed about it and wanted to confront the young man again. This was wrong, but this could have been avoided by not being a ******* in the first place.


    Yes, this man was within his rights, and so are the funeral protesters with the westboro baptist church.
    “The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.”
    [Miller vs. U.S., 230 F. Supp. 486, 489 (1956)]
    “There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of constitutional rights.”
    [Sherar vs. Cullen, 481 F2d. 946 (1973)]

  12. #12
    Regular Member William Fisher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Oxford, Ohio
    Posts
    238
    Why did he leave on foot when he arrived in (what appeared to be) a step van or whatever it was? He could have full well recorded from the vehichle BUT (I believe) he seemed to want the LEO to SEE his firearm. This kind of thing makes OCers look like confrontational Red Necks.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    SEMO, , USA
    Posts
    578
    Quote Originally Posted by MilProGuy View Post
    The fellow was foolish to approach an officer who was conducting a routine traffic stop, with a gun on his side and a video camera rolling.

    He set out to get noticed with his gun, just sayin'.

    Foolish he may have been, but I don't think that foolishness rose to the level of RAS for the officer to stop him and demand ID. Do you believe the officer was correct in stopping the man and demanding ID? If so, what do you believe was the RAS to do so? Would it be filming the officer during a traffic stop? Openly carrying a holstered firearm? Exercising both rights at in concert? Or do you believe that simply being "foolish" should be enough to stop someone and demand they ID themselves?

    Another point I noticed, during most of the stop of the man, the officer stood there with his hand on his holstered gun. If I had done that while talking to to someone in my state, I would be charged with brandishing , or making a terroristic threat. If the officer has the right to be at the ready while talking to someone with an openly displayed firearm, why don't we?

    As to setting out to get noticed. Many people set out to get noticed while exercising their right to free speech. Many people set out to get noticed while exercising their right to assemble. Many people set out to get noticed while exercising any number of their rights. Why should their 2A rights be so sacrosanct in this regard.
    AUDE VIDE TACE

  14. #14
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849
    Quote Originally Posted by SavageOne View Post
    Let me say that this is not something I could see myself doing. With that said. Would it have been different had the person had a hammer hanging off their belt? I believe there was just a story in the news were a guy with a hammer was attacking people at a mall. The simple truth is that any "tool" can be used as a weapon. Would the facts of the situation have been different if the man had been CCing? The facts are(as I see them) a man who is carrying a weapon goes to a film a traffic stop.

    This man chose to film the police during a traffic stop. The fact that he chose to exercise his right to carry a firearm, while doing so shouldn't enter into it. I often hear people saying they are trying to make OC more acceptable to the general public. Do you not realize that if we continue to say that "there's a time and place for it" that we are saying that there should be limits to how and when we exercise our rights. Are we saying that in this case it would have been better to CC rather than cast OC in a bad light? If that's the case then we are arguing appearances not rights.

    It is true that labels may be attached to him for what he did. I would point out that those same labels are already attached to us by those who don't agree with how we chose to exercise our rights. You can be as clean cut and pleasant you like, there are still going to be those(even those who say they support the 2A) who are going to label you derisively.

    This man chose to exercise two rights at the same time, and while I might not agree with how he did them, I will not condemn him for either. Some can label him activist, others can label him A-hole, I'm just glad to see people exercising rights lest they atrophy and die. As for the activist to A-hole scale, I view this guy somewhere in the middle, but recognize all points of it have rights.
    I was not referring to the fellow in the video as an a--hole, but rather some of the ones we have all seen in youtube videos where it is very obvious they are doing nothing more than trying to get a rise out of an LEO just to get it on camera. Those are the ones I have a problem with. Deliberately going out of one's way to confront and antagonize anyone in the hopes of getting negative attention when armed is just not something we want to see taking place.
    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    SEMO, , USA
    Posts
    578
    Quote Originally Posted by Schlitz View Post
    I want people to think of the open carry community as normal people who go about there day doing normal things - they just carry their gun openly instead of concealed.

    But this guy ruins that image, in my opinion. He isn't just going about a normal routine openly carrying, he is interrupting a police officer conducting a traffic stop. You know how we all talk about increased situational awareness when we are open carrying? Well that is what is on the cops mind while he is in the middle of a traffic stop. It's not like the cop just saw a man walk by while open carrying during the traffic stop, the guy intentionally threw himself into the situation (walked right up the front of the car). This cop didn't see an open carrier, he saw a man walk right up to the ******* car during his traffic stop, and for the cherry on top the individual who was being disruptive just happened to have a firearm.

    Look, I don't want a cop all up in my face while I'm conducting my everyday business, and out of respect I don't throw myself into their business.


    Now after the fact, the cop seemed to be pissed about it and wanted to confront the young man again. This was wrong, but this could have been avoided by not being a ******* in the first place.


    Yes, this man was within his rights, and so are the funeral protesters with the westboro baptist church.

    I understand what you're saying but, we have to realize that not everyone who OC's is trying to improve our image. There are those who OC who are simply exercising their right. Not everyone cares about the "movement", some only care about the "right". I may not like the fact that this man portrays OC in a unfavorable light, but I accept the fact that he has the right to carry his gun openly when he deems it fit. That seems the be the problem many here have. We want to exercise our rights and we want the general public to like it as well. I will be satisfied if we get to a point where my right is accepted, if it's liked that's just gravy.

    Larry Flynt was no ones poster boy for free speech, but he still helped to protect that right for all. We are going to have to get to a point where we realize that we will never make everyone like OC, but hopefully they will accept it. I have no doubt that the majority of the members here work very hard to help move the acceptance of OC forward, but we cannot condemn those who are simply interested in the exercise of their right, not the ramifications of doing so. If we don't we have lost sight of the true goal.

    Your example of the westboro group is spot on. I don't like what they do, but I do accept it. This man deserves the same treatment.

    To your point about OCing during your normal routine, as the "Occupy" demonstrations have shown, this could very easily be part of this man's normal routine.
    AUDE VIDE TACE

  16. #16
    Regular Member MilProGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Mississippi
    Posts
    1,228
    Quote Originally Posted by SavageOne View Post
    Do you believe the officer was correct in stopping the man and demanding ID?

    Yes...because he had absolutely no business interfering with the officer's routine stop of another citizen.

    what do you believe was the RAS to do so?

    I don't know what RAS means, but the officer had a right to follow the man and see what he was up to. The "van guy's" behavior was most odd.

    Would it be filming the officer during a traffic stop?

    Walking right over, openly armed with a handgun and all but getting in the officer's face with a video camera was deliberately provoking the incident.

    Openly carrying a holstered firearm? NO, but linked with his crass interference with the LEO's business, the handgun was definitely a concern for the officer, and perhaps for the stopped motorist.

    Exercising both rights at in concert? Already answered above.

    Or do you believe that simply being "foolish" should be enough to stop someone and demand they ID themselves? If the guy had stayed in his van and minded his own business, none of this would have happened. Chances are, if the man had left his house walking with his gun on his hip, and had not deliberately went out looking for a cop to harass, he would have been able to take his walk, openly-carrying for all his neighbors to see, and none of this would have happened.

    Another point I noticed, during most of the stop of the man, the officer stood there with his hand on his holstered gun. If I had done that while talking to to someone in my state, I would be charged with brandishing , or making a terroristic threat. If the officer has the right to be at the ready while talking to someone with an openly displayed firearm, why don't we?

    As to setting out to get noticed. Many people set out to get noticed while exercising their right to free speech. Many people set out to get noticed while exercising their right to assemble. Many people set out to get noticed while exercising any number of their rights. Why should their 2A rights be so sacrosanct in this regard.
    His right to carry and his right to free speech are fine to exercise, but to interfere with the lawful duties of the LEO along with his "rights", caused him to cross a line and infringe on the officer's right to conduct his stop without interference.
    Proud Veteran ~ U.S. Army / Army Reserve

    Mississippi State Guard ~ Honorably Retired


  17. #17
    Campaign Veteran Schlitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,567
    Quote Originally Posted by SavageOne View Post
    I understand what you're saying but, we have to realize that not everyone who OC's is trying to improve our image. There are those who OC who are simply exercising their right. Not everyone cares about the "movement", some only care about the "right". I may not like the fact that this man portrays OC in a unfavorable light, but I accept the fact that he has the right to carry his gun openly when he deems it fit. That seems the be the problem many here have. We want to exercise our rights and we want the general public to like it as well. I will be satisfied if we get to a point where my right is accepted, if it's liked that's just gravy.

    Larry Flynt was no ones poster boy for free speech, but he still helped to protect that right for all. We are going to have to get to a point where we realize that we will never make everyone like OC, but hopefully they will accept it. I have no doubt that the majority of the members here work very hard to help move the acceptance of OC forward, but we cannot condemn those who are simply interested in the exercise of their right, not the ramifications of doing so. If we don't we have lost sight of the true goal.

    Your example of the westboro group is spot on. I don't like what they do, but I do accept it. This man deserves the same treatment.

    To your point about OCing during your normal routine, as the "Occupy" demonstrations have shown, this could very easily be part of this man's normal routine.
    I'm not sure I see what you're getting at with your reply... obviously I have realized that not everyone is trying to improve our image...hence the video here... I have accepted the fact that this man has the right to carry his gun and be an ******* about..... and I'm calling him just that...a *******...

    and how in the world could this be a "normal" routine? He said that it was his girlfriend getting pulled over. So it wasn't something he did everyday at the same time same place aka a routine.
    “The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.”
    [Miller vs. U.S., 230 F. Supp. 486, 489 (1956)]
    “There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of constitutional rights.”
    [Sherar vs. Cullen, 481 F2d. 946 (1973)]

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    SEMO, , USA
    Posts
    578
    Quote Originally Posted by MilProGuy View Post
    His right to carry and his right to free speech are fine to exercise, but to interfere with the lawful duties of the LEO along with his "rights", caused him to cross a line and infringe on the officer's right to conduct his stop without interference.

    How exactly did the man interfere? When commanded by the officer to back out of the scene, he did so. The stop was occurring on a public street. The man had ever right to be there. The officer felt that he was too close initially and commanded the man to back away, the man complied. I hope you are not suggesting that a person lawfully videoing an officer in public is interference. It is well established that it is not. As to minding his own business, the man states that it was his girlfriend being pulled over, and I can accept his wishing to make a video of the incident for safety. Lord knows, plenty of OCers have videoed their own encounters.

    RAS stands for Reasonable Articulable Suspicion. It the standard that an officer must show before they are allowed to stop a citizen and demand their ID(this is a very limited definition I know). A common definition is also the officer must believe the person "has committed a crime, is committing a crime, or is about to commit a crime". Since we established that videoing an officer is not illegal and openly wearing a firearm is not illegal, I fail to see any reason the officer stopped the man the second time. He had already given an explanation for his actions and left the area. I would say that is the reason he did not get back in his vehicle. Had he re-entered his vehicle, he could be "stopped" for a traffic check and had to present his drivers license. Since he was on foot they could not demand his drivers license, without RAS. There are several videos on YouTube of Vermont OCers doing similar things. I am not saying I agree with it, just that I accept it as being within the confines of their rights.

    For the record RAS is a lower standard than Probable Cause.
    AUDE VIDE TACE

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    SEMO, , USA
    Posts
    578
    Quote Originally Posted by Schlitz View Post
    I'm not sure I see what you're getting at with your reply... obviously I have realized that not everyone is trying to improve our image...hence the video here... I have accepted the fact that this man has the right to carry his gun and be an ******* about..... and I'm calling him just that...a *******...

    and how in the world could this be a "normal" routine? He said that it was his girlfriend getting pulled over. So it wasn't something he did everyday at the same time same place aka a routine.


    Part of your post was "But this guy ruins that image" in reference to what you want people view the "open carry community" as. That was my point that while you may wish to better the view of "open carry community" in the view of people(and I applaud you for it) not everybody cares. He may not care if he ruins, some image that others are trying to foster, he may simply be OCing because it is his choice. It is also possible that he is OCing to cause confrontation with police, and while I would find that reason distasteful I would have to accept it as his right. Much like "bait cars" don't make people steal cars, wearing an openly displayed firearm doesn't make an officer stop you.

    As to the normal routine aspect. There are many people who make it point to video tape police interaction at every opportunity. In that sense, this could have been his normal routine.
    AUDE VIDE TACE

  20. #20
    Regular Member MilProGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Mississippi
    Posts
    1,228
    Quote Originally Posted by SavageOne View Post

    RAS stands for Reasonable Articulable Suspicion. It the standard that an officer must show before they are allowed to stop a citizen and demand their ID(this is a very limited definition I know). A common definition is also the officer must believe the person "has committed a crime, is committing a crime, or is about to commit a crime"...

    ...For the record RAS is a lower standard than Probable Cause.
    I've learned something new today, and I appreciate your taking the time to patiently and clearly define this for me.

    Thank you.
    Proud Veteran ~ U.S. Army / Army Reserve

    Mississippi State Guard ~ Honorably Retired


  21. #21
    Regular Member MilProGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Mississippi
    Posts
    1,228
    Quote Originally Posted by Schlitz View Post
    I want people to think of the open carry community as normal people who go about there day doing normal things - they just carry their gun openly instead of concealed.

    But this guy ruins that image, in my opinion. He isn't just going about a normal routine openly carrying, he is interrupting a police officer conducting a traffic stop. You know how we all talk about increased situational awareness when we are open carrying? Well that is what is on the cops mind while he is in the middle of a traffic stop. It's not like the cop just saw a man walk by while open carrying during the traffic stop, the guy intentionally threw himself into the situation (walked right up the front of the car). This cop didn't see an open carrier, he saw a man walk right up to the ******* car during his traffic stop, and for the cherry on top the individual who was being disruptive just happened to have a firearm.

    Look, I don't want a cop all up in my face while I'm conducting my everyday business, and out of respect I don't throw myself into their business.


    Now after the fact, the cop seemed to be pissed about it and wanted to confront the young man again. This was wrong, but this could have been avoided by not being a ******* in the first place.


    Yes, this man was within his rights, and so are the funeral protesters with the westboro baptist church.
    Please don't bash your head against the keyboard until it's a bloody pulp, my friend, but I've just got to jump in and commend you for a very insightful and logical post; and I must say I agree totally with your sentiments on this issue.
    Proud Veteran ~ U.S. Army / Army Reserve

    Mississippi State Guard ~ Honorably Retired


  22. #22
    Regular Member Jack House's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    I80, USA
    Posts
    2,661
    Quote Originally Posted by 09jisaac View Post
    OC is right, in my opinion. If anyone is just filming a confrontation by cops they're justified, they're trying to protect themselves/others. If someone is displaying a firearm most of us here think that they're just trying to protect themselves/others but as soon as you combine the two, they're "a--holes"? He complied with the officers request to step away from the traffic stop. He wasn't OCing a rifle. He might have wanted a confrontation, but that is his right to do.

    It is our right to watch those that "watch" us. It is also our right to carry a firearm around in everyday life. So why is it so stupid to do them both? Most cops realize that they enforce the law. Out of my limited dealings with officers none has ever tried to be the law, one tried his best to find a law I was breaking. So we need to make it plain to these cops that they are being watched and they are under scrutiny. Unless something is very sensitive then we should film everything that LEOs do in official business.
    The issue isn't that he was recording a traffic stop while OC'ing, the issue is that he interrupted the traffic stop with no good reason other than to announce his presence. Which there was no need.

    I don't agree that the officer was wrong to confront the individual. Rather I believe that a lecturing was warranted. That doesn't mean I think the officer went about it correctly, I certainly don't think there was a need for the officer to keep his hand on his firearm.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546
    Hey guys, how does that boot taste?
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •